Merry Generic Winter Day-Off With No Religious Content

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why not?!?!?!?!?! Ollie has let us know (through third parties, of course) about his diaper thing.

Mainly because I can't remember them and/or don't want to attribute a kink that isn't his. And/or ya'll may not think that vibrators up the butt, for example, are all that kinky. OTOH, what was probably going on the other side of the steam was a MMF.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why not?!?!?!?!?! Ollie has let us know (through third parties, of course) about his diaper thing.

No, b'n'b is making Thurgreed wear a diaper. Believe me, I've had wayyyyyy too much real-world experience with diapers over the last few years for them to have any sexual connection for me. Changing them, that is. Not wearing them. Thurgreed in a diaper is not erotic. But it is kinda funny.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Mainly because I can't remember them and/or don't want to attribute a kink that isn't his. And/or ya'll may not think that vibrators up the butt, for example, are all that kinky. OTOH, what was probably going on the other side of the steam was a MMF.

"Lots of guys like to watch their buddies fuck. I know I do."

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Gatorade doesn't have HFCS:

http://www.bevnet.com/reviews/gatorade/facts.asp

That's only the lemonade. The orange flavored Gatorade on my desk has HFCS and sucrose syrup.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
That's only the lemonade. The orange flavored Gatorade on my desk has HFCS and sucrose syrup.

It also has my spit. Never leave your office unattended.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
That web page must be old. I think they recently started using it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatorade

Propel does not have HFCS.

The webpage listed glucose-fructose syrup.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Probably so, but I wasn't attempting to absolve Tully Banta-Cain of any responsibility for the result. I was just saying that I thought it was bad reffing. Also, I haven't seen a replay. Maybe he was swinging for Manning's head out of frustration.

As I was watching for the flag based on earlier plays (and have tivo), I watched the replay closely and a couple of times. It was a relatively minor thing--Banta-Cain had his hands up to block the pass and his right hand followed-through/landed/hit Manning in the general facemask/top-front of the helmet area. They didn't show a reverse angle, so it was hard to tell if it was hard, or if his hand made in inside the facemask.

But, as TM noted repeatedly, contact with a qb's head is supposed to be an automatic penalty. The 2006 rulebook includes in the definition of roughing the qb the following note: "Note 1: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic on the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer."

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
It also has my spit. Never leave your office unattended.

Though he didn't specifically address spit, I think Penske's okay with it, as long as it's not infectious with the STD cooties.

You didn't drop any ear wax in there, did you?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
It also has my spit. Never leave your office unattended.

This is good advice. I NEVER leave my office unattended. Although it is expensive for my firm to have a staff of office attendants available at all times to man otherwise unoccupied offices, think about the alternative. Monkey spit.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
what was probably going on the other side of the steam was a MMF.

See, we (ok, I) like knowing this stuff!!

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
This is good advice. I NEVER leave my office unattended. Although it is expensive for my firm to have a staff of office attendants available at all times to man otherwise unoccupied offices, think about the alternative. Monkey spit.

At a firm where I was once employed, a misguided bunch of associates decided it would be appropriate to give a gift to the partners in honor of a significant firm anniversery. I, and several others, pushed hard for a monkey. I have to admit, we didn't consider the monkey spit issue. Though we did consider the whole feces-throwing thing to be a plus, all in all.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
At a firm where I was once employed, a misguided bunch of associates decided it would be appropriate to give a gift to the partners in honor of a significant firm anniversery. I, and several others, pushed hard for a monkey. I have to admit, we didn't consider the monkey spit issue. Though we did consider the whole feces-throwing thing to be a plus, all in all.

Would you like my resume?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
As I was watching for the flag based on earlier plays (and have tivo), I watched the replay closely and a couple of times. It was a relatively minor thing--Banta-Cain had his hands up to block the pass and his right hand followed-through/landed/hit Manning in the general facemask/top-front of the helmet area. They didn't show a reverse angle, so it was hard to tell if it was hard, or if his hand made in inside the facemask.

But, as TM noted repeatedly, contact with a qb's head is supposed to be an automatic penalty. The 2006 rulebook includes in the definition of roughing the qb the following note: "Note 1: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic on the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer."

I think this Note goes too far. What if the referee did not see the play at all, and turns around to see the QB and defensive Hank-man on the ground, rolling about and slapping each other on the ass. In such a case, there will necessarily be doubt as to the existence of a roughness call, because the ref did not see the play at all and therefore has doubt as to what occurred, and he is obligated to make the call. You could get calls where there was no contact at all, but where instead the defenseive lineman and the QB just happened to fall down near each other, leaving the impression of some form of contact. Football is a crazy sport.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
Would you like my resume?

I would kill for your resume. You're the guy who went to Yale, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
But, as TM noted repeatedly, contact with a qb's head is supposed to be an automatic penalty. The 2006 rulebook includes in the definition of roughing the qb the following note: "Note 1: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactic on the quarterback, the Referee should always call roughing the passer."

As I believe I told TM in a PM, I simply cannot believe that the NFL's supervisor of officiating would have busted those refs for failing to call that penalty in that situation.